Yeah, that’s a blackout. Not the passing out part; that’s just passing out. A blackout is when you continue to appear, to some degree, oriented and conscious. The problem is that your memory has stopped recording, so you don’t recollect anything beyond this point.
Any person intoxicated to the point where a blackout is possible (or probable) is unable to give meaningful consent, regardless of their apparent consciousness or orientation.
“Any person intoxicated to the point where a blackout is possible (or probable) is unable to give meaningful consent, regardless of their apparent consciousness or orientation.”
And how are you supposed to tell? It’s not like a flashing light comes on.
In my friends case, neither check-in nor security realized they were that
intoxicated, so basing criminal guilt on something that isn’t obvious is
dubious indeed.
Off the top of my head: slurred speech, ‘bobblehead’ neck movements (that’s the clinical term), severely impaired proprioception and motor coordination, psychomotor retardation, ‘heavy’ eyelids—these are all indications that the person is way beyond the point of being able to give meaningful consent.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Say more.
More? Sigh. Okay, lets roll this dude all the way to the bottom of the hill. Or just before the bottom. There’s no way he’ll get much speed
I use that response mainly because it’s kryptonite and/or radioactive marker for trolls.
If I do sense that their response in turn is earnest, then at least I feel like I’m dealing with someone who is either (a) genuinely open, (b) confused, or © incredibly dense.
Assuming (a) or (b) preserves my default optimism of human nature, so I tend to go with that.
. Yet in their rush to condemn Turner’s sentence, far too many liberals have abandoned what were, not so long ago, fundamental principles of progressivism. This willingness to toss due process out the window in sexual assault cases is, unfortunately, indicative of a broader inconsistency that plagues the American left.
Ironically, in the U.S. that policy was more or less killed in the 1970s by a…wait for it…Freedom Rider.
If you can’t stand up, you can’t consent, that’s pretty clear. But you can
be inside a blackout drunk and still appear remarkably coherent; as I said,
my friend made it through both check-in and security (which requires motor
coordination and proprioception) and remembers none of it.
Practically speaking (because I’m not a lawyer and I’ve already learned my lesson about armchair lawyering), anyone who would want to f—k someone that drunk is either predatory or too drunk to notice that they’re predatory. And I say ‘f—k’ because the notion of meaningful consent in that situation is so tenuous that anyone with common sense would have already abandoned any notions of getting it on.
This doesn’t address what I sense is your question about legality, so I’ll leave that for someone else to answer.
Did you even bother reading what I wrote? As in, the “he is still guilty of assault for continuing once she became unresponsive”. Do you not understand the word “guilty”? Guilty means “not innocent”. Clear? This discussion is about the sentencing, not his guilt.
Yep, I think you’ve got that right. In the case of Brock (with his blood alcohol level of twice the legal limit), possible the latter. Also quite likely (probably, IMO) he’s just a lying scumbag who knew full well how drunk she was and took advantage of it. Unfortunately the judge can’t know that for sure.
Im guessing the defense was covering those tracks within hours of being put on the trial.
Imma go out on a limb here, at risk to myself for even bringing it up, and say that college fraternity and sports culture can be, in essence, toxic. Yea, tho we walk through the valley of Title IX and consent programs, something is profoundly, profoundly missing. Moreover, this vivissection of consent is profoundly disturbing. When you find a girl passed out or blacked out behind a dumpster and you still have the capacity to form a two-fingered salute into her vagina, DON’T DO IT.
Giving him a real sentence instead of letting him get back to his life (when she sure fucking can’t) isn’t necessarily at odds with rehabilitation.
Have you ever met a woman so drunk she consented to be naked on the ground in an alley behind a dumpster?
I’d say that if she were to request so we should, but at the same time there really needs to be something done about rape culture. This is a perfect example, that the guy was found guilty of three counts and then is let off with a slap on the wrist. I think that every example of this where some privileged person gets off light because some bullshit reason like this (the judge and the guy both went to Stanford) should have a spotlight shined upon it, such that we can chip away at rape culture here.
Another important aspect about the victims of crimes like this (I can’t attest to her directly, but often it is needed), they typically need justice as a part of the healing process and that wasn’t afforded to her.
Slightly off topic …
“What if this was your [female relative]?”
if anyone ever says that to you, please say “So in order to determine what’s morally right in this scenario, you have to envision this is your [female relative]?”
Newsflash: even women you’re not related to have the right to not be raped
Don’t fuck drunk; that’s a good way to tell. Tread exceedingly lightly when it comes to having sex when any mind altering substance is about.
And given the lower burdens of proof and admission of evidence, there’s a nonzero chance she could pretty much own everything this guy has. I hope she bankrupts him for life.
Everyone deserves a fair trial and someone to advocate on their behalf- Even the obviously guilty.
There’s a wikihow on this… with pictures!
Seriously though…c’mon, bro.
